Poll: The New Domain Suffixes

[PsykoDragon]

For a brief tutorial for those of you who don't know, a "domain suffix" is that ".com" you see in that address bar above this text. Other suffixes are ".net" & ".org", for example.

To begin with, I came across this article: ROFL: Google fights for web suffixes, .lol, .bank [http://www.news.com.au/technology/new-internet-suffixes-include-lol-bank/story-e6frfro0-1226393794491].

In brief, it's about proposals to make new suffixes using company names or anything else, such as "search.google" instead of "google.com".

Does anyone else see how much of a headache this can be? The first thing that came to my mind was that simply typing "google" & then hitting "Ctrl+Enter" would go the way of the Dodo bird. We also have "Shift+Enter" for .net & "Ctrl+Shift+Enter" for .org by default. You can even get an extension for Firefox to add to or edit the default suffix shortcuts.

I decided to add a poll for the heck of it, tell me what you think about this topic if you please.

EDIT: "tell me what you think about this topic if you please"

 

[evilneko]

More's better. Imagine if .bank were implemented securely, so that only actual banks could get one. That'd put a nice dent in phishing.

Does anyone else see how much of a headache this can be? The first thing that came to my mind was that simply typing "google" & then hitting "Ctrl+Enter" would go the way of the Dodo bird. We also have "Shift+Enter" for .net & "Ctrl+Shift+Enter" for .org by default. You can even get an extension for Firefox to add to or edit the default suffix shortcuts.

Who does that? (and who the hell hits Google's front page, anyway?)

 

[omega 616]

I can't even remember the last time I saw google home page, just go to the address bar and type in the search query, hit enter and up it comes .... except on firefox, some shitty little virus installed funmoods and I can't get rid of it.

I don't really see a problem, sure at first it would be a little hard to remember but after 6 months everybody will have it down

 

[Lizardon]

I wasn't even aware that there were shortcuts for the domain suffixes. It doesn't seem like something labour intensive enough to require shortcuts.

I see no problem with having more suffixes. It seems like it will lead to more unique and easier to remember addresses. Besides now-a-days people only enter an address once and bookmark the site if they ever intend to return.

 

[bobmus]

More's better. Imagine if .bank were implemented securely, so that only actual banks could get one. That'd put a nice dent in phishing.

Does anyone else see how much of a headache this can be? The first thing that came to my mind was that simply typing "google" & then hitting "Ctrl+Enter" would go the way of the Dodo bird. We also have "Shift+Enter" for .net & "Ctrl+Shift+Enter" for .org by default. You can even get an extension for Firefox to add to or edit the default suffix shortcuts.

Who does that? (and who the hell hits Google's front page, anyway?)

I do that. With all web addresses I know.

Otherwise I agree with you. For select secure sites, like banks, this could be a good idea.
To give out company domain names would be stupid.

 

[MrTub]

Im pretty sure they are thinking about adding .sex .pizza and a couple of more.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18428324

 

[Pinkamena]

Uh oh. Bad idea! I can imagine a lot of people making sites with custom suffixes, making it really difficult to navigate the net. Imagine if someone made a web site called "www.ComputerJohn.awesomesite". This system would get abused I think.

 

[Thaliur]

Uh oh. Bad idea! I can imagine a lot of people making sites with custom suffixes, making it really difficult to navigate the net. Imagine if someone made a web site called "www.ComputerJohn.awesomesite". This system would get abused I think.

Why would it make navigation difficult? If you know the address, you know the suffix too, don't you?

 

[MrTub]

Uh oh. Bad idea! I can imagine a lot of people making sites with custom suffixes, making it really difficult to navigate the net. Imagine if someone made a web site called "www.ComputerJohn.awesomesite". This system would get abused I think.

"Expenses

Applicants had to pay a $185,000 (£118,800) fee to take part in the application process. They also face a minimum $25,000 annual renewal charge to keep their suffix once it has been granted."

Yeah I do not think that everyone will be doing that

 

[DoPo]

Who does that? (and who the hell hits Google's front page, anyway?)

I do. It's my homepage. It loads, looks pretty and it's simple, all right? I don't actually use it for searching. Stop judging me!

Uh oh. Bad idea! I can imagine a lot of people making sites with custom suffixes, making it really difficult to navigate the net. Imagine if someone made a web site called "www.ComputerJohn.awesomesite". This system would get abused I think.

"Expenses

Applicants had to pay a $185,000 (£118,800) fee to take part in the application process. They also face a minimum $25,000 annual renewal charge to keep their suffix once it has been granted."

Yeah I do not think that everyone will be doing that

Microsoft, Apple, Google. Pretty much these, I'm guessing.

Other than that...what can I say? It's a new feature. It whether it's going to be popular or not remains to be seen. It can be neat, it can get ugly. I don't want to do predictions or prognosis.

 

[MrTub]

Who does that? (and who the hell hits Google's front page, anyway?)

I do. It's my homepage. It loads, looks pretty and it's simple, all right? I don't actually use it for searching. Stop judging me!

Uh oh. Bad idea! I can imagine a lot of people making sites with custom suffixes, making it really difficult to navigate the net. Imagine if someone made a web site called "www.ComputerJohn.awesomesite". This system would get abused I think.

"Expenses

Applicants had to pay a $185,000 (£118,800) fee to take part in the application process. They also face a minimum $25,000 annual renewal charge to keep their suffix once it has been granted."

Yeah I do not think that everyone will be doing that

Microsoft, Apple, Google. Pretty much these, I'm guessing.

Other than that...what can I say? It's a new feature. It whether it's going to be popular or not remains to be seen. It can be neat, it can get ugly. I don't want to do predictions or prognosis.

Yeah but I ment that it will most likely not be abused by normal people but I guess the big companies will

""The big names of the internet have either invested massively or not at all. Amazon for example has applied for 76 names, Google for 101 and Microsoft 11. But there's no applications from Facebook or Twitter."

 

[evilneko]

Who does that? (and who the hell hits Google's front page, anyway?)

I do. It's my homepage. It loads, looks pretty and it's simple, all right? I don't actually use it for searching. Stop judging me!

Homepage... how quaint!

More's better. Imagine if .bank were implemented securely, so that only actual banks could get one. That'd put a nice dent in phishing.

Does anyone else see how much of a headache this can be? The first thing that came to my mind was that simply typing "google" & then hitting "Ctrl+Enter" would go the way of the Dodo bird. We also have "Shift+Enter" for .net & "Ctrl+Shift+Enter" for .org by default. You can even get an extension for Firefox to add to or edit the default suffix shortcuts.

Who does that? (and who the hell hits Google's front page, anyway?)

I do that. With all web addresses I know.

Otherwise I agree with you. For select secure sites, like banks, this could be a good idea.
To give out company domain names would be stupid.

I've... never used any browser's domain guessing feature. Inline auto-complete plus the history/bookmarks dropdown is far superior.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

"Expenses

Applicants had to pay a $185,000 (£118,800) fee to take part in the application process. They also face a minimum $25,000 annual renewal charge to keep their suffix once it has been granted."

Yeah I do not think that everyone will be doing that

Microsoft, Apple, Google. Pretty much these, I'm guessing.

The list is slightly longer than that. Just a little bit. [http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en]

 

[DoPo]

"Expenses

Applicants had to pay a $185,000 (£118,800) fee to take part in the application process. They also face a minimum $25,000 annual renewal charge to keep their suffix once it has been granted."

Yeah I do not think that everyone will be doing that

Microsoft, Apple, Google. Pretty much these, I'm guessing.

The list is slightly longer than that. Just a little bit. [http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en]

Wow... OK, I was slightly off, it seems.

And lol @ "католик" (FYI, that is "catholic"). The Vatican is making moves on the Cyrillic portion of the world, it seems.

 

[Pinkamena]

Uh oh. Bad idea! I can imagine a lot of people making sites with custom suffixes, making it really difficult to navigate the net. Imagine if someone made a web site called "www.ComputerJohn.awesomesite". This system would get abused I think.

"Expenses

Applicants had to pay a $185,000 (£118,800) fee to take part in the application process. They also face a minimum $25,000 annual renewal charge to keep their suffix once it has been granted."

Yeah I do not think that everyone will be doing that

Oh! Well that's what I get for not reading the article in question... I'm completely OK with this new system then!

 

[Icehearted]

The web is over-saturated as it is with squatters and "me too" websites. I think more of these would only make the junk pile larger.

 

[GonvilleBromhead]

I rather like the clarity of the current system. You know what the website is, and what country it's from. I wouldn't mind seeing a few more (.fi for financial institutions, .xxx for stuff you don't want the kid seeing, .cha for charities), and foreign alphabet additions are harmless...but this idea just doesn't really work for me. Rather strikes me as being allowed to change ones address to just "Google" without the street or postcode, etc.

 

[evilneko]

I rather like the clarity of the current system. You know what the website is, and what country it's from. I wouldn't mind seeing a few more (.fi for financial institutions, .xxx for stuff you don't want the kid seeing, .cha for charities), and foreign alphabet additions are harmless...but this idea just doesn't really work for me. Rather strikes me as being allowed to change ones address to just "Google" without the street or postcode, etc.

.fi is the country TLD for Finland, so that's kinda taken already. .xxx already exists. .org is, ostensibly, for non-profits, in practice not so much. The current system actually isn't as you describe either. Anyone anywhere can get a .com, whether they're a commercial entity or not, similarly I can get a .net without having anything to do with being an actual network. Even country codes aren't reliably descriptive (how many .tv and .ly domains are actually hosted in Tuvalu and Libya?) Heck, the only reliably accurate TLD is .gov.